Chet Ram Vs Hari Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No.57 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.3.2026

_____________________________________________________________________ Chet Ram

……...Petitioner Versus Hari Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgI, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2024, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.6.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., in Case No. 281/2019, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioneraccused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the “Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- to the complainant.

¶7

2

¶8

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

¶9

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 3.6.2024 held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per the description given herein above. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.11.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his

¶10

3

¶11

acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- stands paid to the respondent/complainant and sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- already stands deposited before learned trial Court and petitioner accused has no objection in case same is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent. He states that since accused is ready and willing to pay the entire amount of compensation, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence.

¶13

6. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to compromise, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant states that his client shall have no objection in compounding the offence subject to release of the amount lying deposited in the trial Court in his favour. Learned counsel further submits that since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own money, this Court may also award some litigation cost.

¶14

7. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondentcomplainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of

¶15

4

¶16

the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Cour t in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 , wherein it has been categorically held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.

¶17

8. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated 3.6.2024 and 25.11.2024, passed by the courts below are quashed and setaside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. Since respondent-complainant was unnecessarily compelled to institute the legal proceedings against the accused that too for realization of his own money, this court deems it fit to direct the accused to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent-Complainant as litigation cost, payable within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner shall also be liable to pay 5% of the cheque amount as compounding fee with the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within the afore period. It is made clear that in case, needful is not done by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court, he besides rendering himself liable for penal consequences would also invite contempt proceedings. Learned trial court

¶18

5

¶19

is also directed to release the amount, if any, deposited by the accused, on filing appropriate application detailing therein saving bank account details of the complainant. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶20

March 3, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Chet Ram v. Hari Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chet Ram v. Hari Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Vs Devinder Singh Jalta and Anr.

Waseem Beg Vs State of Hp

Krish Thakur Vs State of Hp

Bal Krishan Vs State of Hp

Jyoti Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sheela Sharma and Another Vs State of Hp and Another